As we have previously reported, four cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in March attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is Jacki Easlick, LLC v. AccEncyc US, a design patent case. In it, Jacki Easlick, LLC and JE Corporate, LLC appeal a district court’s denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. This is our argument preview.
In its opening brief, Easlick contends the district court abused its discretion when it denied its motion for a preliminary injunction. Easlick faults “findings that [Easlick] had not established a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.” Easlick highlights that the court must “apply the ‘ordinary observer’ test,” which “turns on similarities of the overall design, not of individual ornamental features considered in isolation.” In this case, however, Easlick argues, the court improperly relied on “individual ornamental features” rather than “the overall appearance of the two products, as compared to the prior art.”
In its response brief, AccEncyc argues the district court “properly construed” Easlick’s design patent by considering its “ornamental aspects.” Furthermore, AccEncyc contends, the lower court appropriately found AccEncyc’s design was not “substantially similar” under the appropriate standard. It rejects Easlick’s contention the lower court abused its discretion when denying Easlick’s motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing “Easlick had not made the required showing” of “irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.”
In its reply brief, Easlick contends AccEncyc “merely repeats” the lower court’s mistake “by focusing on individual design details.” Turning to the issue of irreparable harm, Easlick contends “AccEncyc does not rebut” Easlick’s arguments establishing irreparable harm “because it is unable to do so.” Easlick maintains, moreover, “the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by changing its position on irreparable harm” at different stages of litigation “even though the record at both stages was identical.” Thus, in Easlick’s view, the case should be remanded to the lower court “for further proceedings on the motion for preliminary injunction.”
The case attracted an amicus brief filed by Law Professors Sarah Fackrell, Eric Goldman, Elizabeth Rosenblatt, and Saurabh Vishnubhakat. They support AccEncyc and affirmance. They argue Easlick “failed to demonstrate” it is “likely to succeed on the merits” because it could not satisfy the “two-step framework for analyzing design patent infringement.” Further, they contend, Easlick has “made no attempt to particularize the source” of the “alleged harm.” As a result, they agree with the lower court’s “conclusions on likelihood of infringement and irreparable harm.”
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Monday, March 9 at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 201.